Filed 9/21/18 Y.S. v. A.S. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Paula S. Rosenstein, Judge. Affirmed.

A.S., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Marcus Family Law Center, Ethan Marcus and Erin Kathleen Tomlinson for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The trial court granted Y.S.'s petition for renewal of a domestic violence restraining order against her son, A.S. A.S. appeals, contending his mother failed to serve the relevant documents on him personally. He further contends service by mail was not allowed. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The only relevant fact for which A.S. provides a record citation in his brief is that on August 1, 2017, the court granted Y.S.'s petition and renewed the restraining order against him for five years, until July 31, 2022. In other portions of his "statement of facts" he recounts his childhood hardships with his mother, his parents' "high conflict divorce since 2012," and a motion to quash that he filed after the court's ruling in this case. We do not address those matters because they are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal. With no citation to the record, A.S. briefly recounts his mother's attempts to serve the documents. on him. He claims his father refused to accept the documents.

DISCUSSION

A.S. asserts without record citation or supporting legal authority that he was "not served personally with any documents and no proof of service was filed to corroborate the purported service on July 17, 2017." Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 provides a mechanism for serving a summons or complaint on a person in lieu of personal delivery.[1] A.S. claims that statute "is unacceptable Civil Code, [sic] as restraining order petitions should be served personally and not on third parties or by mail." He adds without explanation that Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20, "pertains to a summons and complaint not personal service for a restraining order," and concludes that statute "does not apply to this case."

Under California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), each brief is required to "support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority." As a general rule, "[a] judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct [with] [a]ll intendments and presumptions . . . indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent." (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564, italics omitted.) To obtain reversal, the appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error on the record before the court. (Ibid.) Further, an appellate court is not required to independently search the record for errors, or " 'consider alleged errors where the appellant merely complains without a pertinent argument.' " (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852; Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115.) "When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with a reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived." (Benach, at p. 852.)

A.S. fails to discuss the standard of review or applicable law regarding his contention that service by mail was impermissible in this case. A.S. also failed to elaborate on or support his view that Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20 is inapplicable. He therefore has provided us no basis for finding the trial court erred. We deem his contentions forfeited for failure to support his contentions as required by the applicable principles of appellate review.

An appellate argument is not merely a rehash of arguments unsuccessful at trial, but a carefully honed assertion of legal error and resulting prejudice. The job of the appellant is to demonstrate to this court the trial court erred in specific ways that resulted in identifiable prejudice to the parties. This court will not presume prejudice; it is A.S.'s obligation to demonstrate prejudice through reasoned arguments. (See Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 780, 800-802; Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 105-106 ["[O]ur duty to examine the entire cause arises when and only when the appellant has fulfilled his duty to tender a proper prejudice argument. Because of the need to consider the particulars of the given case, rather than the type of error, the appellant bears the duty of spelling out in his brief exactly how the error caused a miscarriage of justice."].) We conclude A.S. has not overcome the presumption of the correctness of the court's judgment. He is not excused from his obligations on appeal as a self-represented litigant. "[T]he rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation" (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985); litigants proceeding without counsel are "entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys." (Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1056.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Y.S. is entitled to costs on appeal.

O'ROURKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

AARON, J.